The Uprising (2026)

Greengrass delivers a dumb, relentless, visceral and cathartic eat-the-rich epic full of bloody spectacle and handheld fury, evoking Fury Road more than straight history. It boils the blood effectively despite some oversimplification.

Greengrass successfully transplants his signature shaky-cam style to a medieval setting, delivering a visceral, documentary-like take on the Peasants’ Revolt that highlights contemporary parallels. Strong performances, especially from Andrew Garfield, anchor the messy but thrilling narrative of inevitable revolution.

Greengrass turns the Peasants' Revolt into a bold 21st-century populist statement that doubles as a fictional character's origin story. The review highlights its unapologetic approach to class themes.

The film is a watchable historical epic that effectively links 14th-century peasant struggles to contemporary issues of pandemic aftermath, inequality, and distrust in leadership. It benefits from strong performances by Andrew Garfield and Woody Norman, though the shaky-cam style is distracting outside action scenes and the coda feels like a lazy attempt at uplift.

The critic praises the film as a rough-and-tumble chronicle of the Peasants’ Revolt with bracing moral complexity and energetic action sequences. Greengrass prioritizes visceral battles and historical upheaval over extensive dialogue.

The critic finds Greengrass’s dramatization of the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt a mixed achievement that holds interest intermittently through its focus on the logistics of revolt and its echoes of contemporary anger at inequality. He praises the performances and the film’s grim tone but faults the director’s signature style for feeling scattershot and applied rather than organic, along with conceptual confusion over the story’s relation to Robin Hood legend.

The film applies Greengrass's shaky-cam style to the 1381 Peasants' Revolt with mixed success, offering a panoramic but uneven mosaic. Strong supporting turns, especially from Katherine Waterston, stand out amid criticisms of the approach and marketing.

Shaffer finds the film’s political allegory heavy-handed and its conclusion misguided. He praises the thrilling, coherent action sequences, while criticizing the handheld style when it disrupts the medieval setting.

The shaky-cam and mockumentary style create nauseating chaos in this grim retelling of the revolt, diluting characters and themes into broad, simpleminded versions. It drowns in its own mud rather than immersing viewers.

The critic finds Paul Greengrass’s dramatisation of the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt frustratingly listless overall, despite summoning some controlled chaos and widescreen spectacle. Andrew Garfield gives a stirring lead performance as the reluctant rebel Ploughman, but the film lacks dramatic arc and inspired filmmaking.

The critic finds the film a disjointed slog through the mud with the emotional depth of a History Channel rerun and stale handheld camerawork that induces seasickness in fight scenes. Some aerial shots and supporting performances (such as Katherine Waterston’s icy turn) are noted positively, but the overall verdict is that Andrew Garfield’s charisma cannot save the grim and depressingly generic period piece.

The critic finds the film skillfully made and acted but ultimately exhausting due to its relentless intensity and lack of modulation. The cast, including a terrific Andrew Garfield, and the vivid technical recreation of medieval England are singled out for praise.

The critic praises the film's rip-roaring action, urgent pacing, and timely political relevance to inequality and corrupt power. They highlight Andrew Garfield's dignified lead performance and the well-chosen ensemble as reasons viewers root for the rebels.

The critic finds it a well-made historical drama with timely themes of revolution and inequality, praising the gritty realism of the setting and the score. However, the marketing push framing it as a Robin Hood origin story hinders it, and Garfield's lead performance gets lost among a crowded supporting cast.

The critic finds the film gripping and thoughtful for most of its runtime, but says its ending undermines what came before. The performances and the film’s exploration of the revolt’s anger earn praise, while the Robin Hood turn draws sharp criticism.

The critic notes the film begins with propulsive, inspiring rebellion and strong performances but ultimately disappoints due to a weak, unconvincing ending that sours the narrative. They single out the loss of conviction in the climax as the key flaw.

The critic finds the film a dull and dreary disappointment that fails as both a Robin Hood origin story and a historical epic. Greengrass's signature shaky-cam style is singled out as a poor fit for the material, resulting in unfocused action and a lack of scale or substance.